Keep in mind that the Park Service isn't the only place that has a vocal group calling for restrictions on the number of visitors to our wild places. In the past, groups like the Sierra Club have been associated with folks who called for just that - locked gates and forbidden use of public land.

IMHO, if they truly are "our Parks" they should be protected from over-use, but not to the extent that we consider locking people out.

That said, this minuscule fee for BC use isn't doing that at all. I'm not sure why there are some BC users that think they shouldn't have to pay because it's just "always been that way."

There was a time in the U.S. that we didn't have the IRS, too - but I doubt I could use that as an excuse today as to why I shouldn't pay my share. Ya feel me?

People are questioning the decision because the reasons provided for the fee are not legitimate, and some believe that the fee revenues will be directed to other cost centers. Most of us have given this a little more thought than just the simpleton argument of "we shouldn't have to pay because it's just always been that way".

Here are the reasons why many people are opposed to this, and it is goes well beyond your simplistic outlook of people just being cheap.

1.) the NPS said in many of the communications to the public that the revenue generated would be directed to the hiring of two backcountry rangers. Information obtained from the park service regarding the development of this plan under the freedom of information act has revealed that this is a lie. It was never part of the plan, and the revenue generated is only expected to cover the cost of the reservation system. The two backcountry rangers we ALREADY going to be hired using private funds donated by the GSMA and Friends of the Smokys (Before this plan ever was revealed) so the two rangers would have been hired without even needing this fee system.

2.) The NPS likely bypassed their legal obligations and in some of their communications either flat our lied about the public response to the plan or at the very least twisted the words of others to fit their purposes

3.) The primary supporters of this plan (again from the comments received and obtained using the FIOA) are people who run commercial guided backpacking trips - ie they are charging clients anyway so it doesn;t impact them, it just gets more of the riff-raff out of the way so they can take more clients on guided trips

4.) Where does this sort of thing stop? Now there are many rumors about a plan developing to ban off trail travel. A lot of people say this a good thing because of how many people get lost and the rescue operations. Think how many streams are not covered by official trails and what fishing access would now be illegal if they do this? Sam's creek would be out. How much donation money and volunteer time went into that restoration project? It's not covered by an officially sanctioned trail. Neither are countless other feeders and streams than people visit and fish on a daily basis without incident.

This more than just people being cheap. It's an erosion of freedom and catering to an elite small few (rich paying backpackers who need a guide to sleep outside without fear) at the expense of the local population who do more for the park than the park will acknowledge.

Here are the reasons why many people are opposed to this, and it is goes well beyond your simplistic outlook of people just being cheap.

1.) the NPS said in many of the communications to the public that the revenue generated would be directed to the hiring of two backcountry rangers. Information obtained from the park service regarding the development of this plan under the freedom of information act has revealed that this is a lie. It was never part of the plan, and the revenue generated is only expected to cover the cost of the reservation system. The two backcountry rangers we ALREADY going to be hired using private funds donated by the GSMA and Friends of the Smokys (Before this plan ever was revealed) so the two rangers would have been hired without even needing this fee system.

2.) The NPS likely bypassed their legal obligations and in some of their communications either flat our lied about the public response to the plan or at the very least twisted the words of others to fit their purposes

3.) The primary supporters of this plan (again from the comments received and obtained using the FIOA) are people who run commercial guided backpacking trips - ie they are charging clients anyway so it doesn;t impact them, it just gets more of the riff-raff out of the way so they can take more clients on guided trips

4.) Where does this sort of thing stop? Now there are many rumors about a plan developing to ban off trail travel. A lot of people say this a good thing because of how many people get lost and the rescue operations. Think how many streams are not covered by official trails and what fishing access would now be illegal if they do this? Sam's creek would be out. How much donation money and volunteer time went into that restoration project? It's not covered by an officially sanctioned trail. Neither are countless other feeders and streams than people visit and fish on a daily basis without incident.

This more than just people being cheap. It's an erosion of freedom and catering to an elite small few (rich paying backpackers who need a guide to sleep outside without fear) at the expense of the local population who do more for the park than the park will acknowledge.

I know right!?! If only there was a system to do so...I would support any rule like that for sure. If people would just take responsibility for their actions, it would fix a lot of problems in our country...

__________________
"Then He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" Matthew 4:19